Bob Uhriniak – 3/6/07This page was last updated on March 11, 2007. This page is to show the e-mail trail when I submitted a letter to the editor the Times chose not to publish. The end of the trail is at the top. The letter was tied to my critique of “In poor health.” In summary, Bob Uhriniak, the editorial page editor, took issue with my assertion that the Times supports a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare system under the name “universal healthcare.” In Mr. Uhriniak’s words, the Times has “consistently supported a market-based approach to health-care reform going back to the Clinton era.” As I noted in my response, however, editorials from at least the last two years don’t support that assertion. In all of the editorials since early 2003 that mentioned universal healthcare, my records indicate only three mentioned “market-based,” and two of those were parenthetical mentions indicating to me secondary importance. I should note Mr. Uhriniak and I had a similar exchange during January 2004. In 2004, Mr. Uhriniak wrote, “It [Beaver County Times] has not, does not and will not” “support a single-payer (government) health care system.” In March 2003, however, an editorial (also entitled “In poor health”) said, “The solution doesn’t necessarily have to be a single-payer (government) system.” I told Mr. Uhriniak, “This quote falls far short of your position that the Times ‘… does not and will not …’ support ‘a single-payer (government) health care system.’” In any case, I felt it was only fair to let you know the Times claims it wants something called “market-based universal healthcare,” though as far as I can tell, the Times hasn’t told us what that means. For the sake of argument, let’s say my view of the Times position is incorrect as Mr. Uhriniak alleges. Given the content of the columns, editorials, and letters on its op-ed pages, it appears the Times is selective when it comes to concern about someone correctly presenting data and/or representing another’s position on an issue. That’s their right, however. After all, it’s their paper. Finally, here’s a question. Am I reading into Times editorials advocating “universal healthcare” something that’s not there?
From:
Robin Cox
Dear Mr. Uhriniak, I kind of expected your response. My comments were based on the body of Times editorials mentioning this topic since 2005. For example, "A painful price" (3/21/06) stated and asked, "What's sad and disturbing is that the nation has a role model that delivers quality service at an affordable cost – the Department of Veterans Affairs. ... So why isn't the VA's approach being taken national?" The VA system is government run and taxpayer funded, though I believe some vets must cover copays. Regarding the assertion "we have consistently supported a market-based approach to health-care reform going back to the Clinton era," my probably incomplete records going back to 2005 indicate only one ("Beyond dollars," 10/30/06) of the many editorials advocating "universal healthcare" mentioned "market-based." Even then, the mention was parenthetical and the editorial didn't explain what it meant by market-based universal healthcare. It's possible the Times attaches a different meaning, but in common usage, "universal healthcare" tends to imply "free" or highly subsidized healthcare provided by a "single payer." In other words, a government-run, taxpayer-funded system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe none of the "universal healthcare" systems employed by other countries are "market-based." Even the Massachusetts system that will require residents to purchase healthcare insurance can't legitimately be called "market-based." It's just my opinion, but to clarify the Times position you stated, I believe your editorials need to mention "market-based" a lot more often and tell us what qualifies as a "market-based universal healthcare" system. Yours truly, Robin Cox
-----Original
Message----- To: Robin Cox From: Bob Uhriniak, editorial page editor Our editorial did not advocate a government-run, taxpayer-funded health-care system. It was a condemnation of the whole system, as the last paragraph made perfectly clear. And as I believe I have told you in the past, we have consistently supported a market-based approach to health-care reform going back to the Clinton era. In fact, I have in my files a Nov. 20, 1991 letter from the Heritage Foundation thanking us for our support of its market-based proposal. Thanks.
-----Original
Message----- The editorial "In poor health" tried to convince us the lack of a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare system killed a boy with a toothache. Hogwash! None of my grandparents graduated from high school and they raised my parents many decades before things like employer-based healthcare, Medicaid, welfare, et cetera existed. Despite that and a far less healthy world than today, I believe it's safe to say they would never have allowed any of their kids to die from a toothache. Are we to believe today's parents can't do what our grandparents, great grandparents, et cetera could do 70, 100, 150 years ago? Contrary to what the Times would like us to believe, our "American health-care system" didn't kill this child. The people with ultimate responsibility for this child were his parents and no one else. While trying to cover for the parents, the editorial unwittingly shot the Times "universal healthcare" crusade in the foot. If we're foolish enough to buy into a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare system instead of a free market system, the editorial gave us a glimpse of what to expect. In a vain effort to control costs, the government will impose price controls and tons of bureaucracy and paperwork just as the editorial indicated exist for Medicaid. The result? Fewer healthcare providers, just as this editorial conceded. Fewer providers mean waiting lists, less access, and lower quality. Of course, that's a glimpse only for the majority of us. Those who can afford to bypass the "universal healthcare" system will receive whatever high quality care they need whenever they need it. In other words, a "universal healthcare" system divides us into classes. What will the Times call the group that can afford to buy healthcare; the "healthcare class" perhaps? © 2004-2007 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved. |
||